State Fair 2009 Disappointment

[gemini]

In response to some of the above comments left by long time users of this forum, I apologize if I offended anyone or posted something you felt was rude. I have lurked in this forum in the past. I joined and actually posted something I felt was important to the shooting community and CHL holders. My intent was to inform, not insult. That said, I stand by everything I posted as the truth.

As far as introductions: I was born and raised in Texas. I have hunted and fished all my life. I have a family, I have manners when around ladies or children and I expect for you to have them too. I believe in Jesus Christ and I love sports. I stand for the national anthym with my hat off and my hand over my heart. I respect the flag and the men who defend our country. I expect a man to have a job. Even if he feels the work is "beneath" himself. That's about it.

Thank you

[M. Sage]

Originally Posted by txinvestigator

I wonder what the folks would have done had you entered the fair anyway? I am not suggesting that you should have tried, but I can't help but wonder..........

I was wondering the same thing. "We need to record your info." "No thanks." As long as you've already paid, what are they going to do? It seems kind of like the "let me check your receipt and rummage your bag" guys at the store.

I really can't see a bunch of fair security deciding to "take down" someone they know has a gun... At least, I hope they wouldn't!

Originally Posted by Shorts

Guys, chill out. I saw gemini's post over on the Texas CHL forum earlier. It does have some merit and like I posted about it on the txchlforum, this scenario is my biggest concern if/when such an interaction takes place (everyone and their dog knowing what's going on).

There was a uniform standing there with gemini along with the workers from the fair. There's no reason they should be collecting or recording anyone's CHL or firearm information. AFAIK they have no authority to do so.

He knows Jack from Jill in regards to Mr Ledbetter. And his response to hkusp1 is probably a bit hot but if I were in his shoes I wouldn't be taking anyone's word for something just yet after such a scene.

Just everyone cool it here and catch your breath.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[lalonguecarabine]

Actually, the lady at the gate sounded far more paranoid than gemini ever did in any of his posts.
I really have to agree with what was said earlier about anyone who carries "losing" their weapon, and that part of the story really made me laugh.
What kind of CHL loses their weapon and doesn't know about it for a day or two?

...just imagine:
"Hey Niel, I found your SIG on the roller coaster"
"Oh crap! I was wondering what happened to it. Gee, thanks, Bob!"

[DCortez]

Originally Posted by lalonguecarabine

What kind of CHL loses their weapon and doesn't know about it for a day or two?

Ask Mo about his 9mm

[Greg_TX]

Something I find interesting about all this - the law says the weapon must remain concealed, but what does the law have to say about instances such as this where your possession of a weapon is disclosed by another party and not by you? When people like these gate droids make a scene like this and bystanders are then made aware that you have a weapon, isn't that like them picking up your shirt-tail and yelling "He's got a gun!!!"?

[txinvestigator]

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

Something I find interesting about all this - the law says the weapon must remain concealed,

Actually it does not. The law makes a violation if YOU intentionally fail to conceal it.

but what does the law have to say about instances such as this where your possession of a weapon is disclosed by another party and not by you?

The law does not say anything about disclosing possession. and doing so is not a violation of the law, in and of itself.

When people like these gate droids make a scene like this and bystanders are then made aware that you have a weapon, isn't that like them picking up your shirt-tail and yelling "He's got a gun!!!"?

Perhaps, but it does not matter legally.

[pheet17]

Very interesting post and banter... oh by the way Pittsburgh is beating the crap outta San Diego..... carry on....

[Texas42]

I don't think I would ever try to ride a roller coaster with a gun. . . . . unless I had a really really really good retention holster. . . . and since my carry holster is an IWB holster . . . . yeah, not going to happen.

I think my com-tac IWB holster is realatively comfortable . . . I know it is there. A glock is a big gun to carry in your pants. I know I'm going to notice it not being there.

PS, yep, Pitsburg is beating the tar out of San Fransisco.

[Shorts]

Originally Posted by txinvestigator

Perhaps, but it does not matter legally.

Maybe it should?

I mean, as often as CHLers debate printing or the meaning of "intentionally or knowingly", maybe it should matter legally if another party blurts us out and disregards a CHLers privacy?

I suppose then it could be argued 'what privacy?' when we have a bunch of us online in gun forums discussing the CHL process, ammo, holsters and guns.


The CHL section of the penal code is only followed by CHLers. Yet we expect CHLers to live in a society that doesn't recognize that section of law because it just doesn't work for them. That doesn't seem right.

Anyway, I'm just blabbing. I'm spaced out from this bug I've been fighting.

[Greg_TX]

Originally Posted by Texas42

I don't think I would ever try to ride a roller coaster with a gun. . . . .

Especially ones like the Rattler at Fiesta Texas - it really lives up to it's name. Old woodies will beat the tar out of you when the tracks start getting rough, like the Texas Cyclone at Astroworld (R.I.P.).